Brooks v. Serio
| Decision Date | 06 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-cv-209-MOC-WCM |
| Citation | 421 F.Supp.3d 249 |
| Parties | Martin James BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. Jennifer SERIO, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
Ronnie Dean Crisco, Jr., Charlotte, NC, Thomas Peter Morris, King Law Office, Rutherfordton, NC, for Plaintiff.
John Robert Brickley, James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., Charlotte, NC, for Defendant.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 5).
Plaintiff Martin James Brooks and Defendant Jennifer Serio Brooks are former spouses, having divorced on June 14, 2018. The parties have two children together.
Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant on April 11, 2018, in the North Carolina General Court of Justice, District Court Division, captioned Martin James Brooks v. Jennifer Serio Brooks, McDowell County file number 18-CVD-315 (the "Domestic Action"). In the Domestic Action, Plaintiff brought claims related to the parties' domestic separation, including claims for child custody, child support, equitable distribution, and absolute divorce. Defendant filed an Answer and Counterclaims on June 13, 2018, bringing claims for child custody, child support, postseparation support, alimony, attorneys' fees, and equitable distribution. As of the filing of this action, only the claim for absolute divorce was fully resolved.
Plaintiff filed an application for a domestic violence protective order against Defendant on June 3, 2019, in the North Carolina General Court of Justice, District Court Division, captioned Martin J. Brooks v. Jennifer J. Serio, Rutherford County, file number 19-CVD-636 (the "DV Action"). Plaintiff filed the application pursuant to North Carolina's Chapter 50B, which governs domestic violence and provides for the entry of domestic violence protective orders. In that action, Plaintiff filed his original Complaint and Motion for Domestic Violence Protective Order (the "original DV Complaint") on June 3, 2019. (Ex. A). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Domestic Violence Protective Order) (the "Amended DV Complaint") on June 11, 2019. (Ex. B). Among other things, the Amended DV Complaint both incorporated by reference the claims and allegations of the original DV Complaint and expanded the request for relief. (Ex. B at p. 1; Ex. B at pp. 4-5).
In the DV Action, Plaintiff made various factual allegations to support his request for a protective order against Defendant. That is, on the form titled "Complaint and Motion for Domestic Violence Protective Order," Plaintiff filled out Section 4, which states, "The defendant has attempted to cause or has intentionally caused me bodily injury; or has placed me or a member of my family or household in fear of imminent serious bodily injury or in fear of continued harassment that rises to such a level as to inflict substantial emotional distress; or has committed a sexual offense against me in that: (Give specific dates and describe in detail what happened.)." In this section of the form, Plaintiff handwrote the following:
(Ex. A, p. 3; Ex. B, p. 5). On the form, Plaintiff checked off numerous actions that he wanted as relief, including an order for Defendant not to assault, threaten, abuse, follow, harass, or interfere with Plaintiff and his children, an order for Defendant to stay away from and his online accounts, an order prohibiting Defendant from possessing or purchasing a firearm, an order requiring Defendant to attend an abuser treatment program, and an order for Defendant "to stop harassing [a co-worker of Plaintiff] and all other business clients, associates, or personal contacts." (Id. at 4-5).
On June 11, 2019, before a hearing was held on the emergency protective order in the DV Action, the parties reached an agreement in which the DV Action was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a handwritten Memorandum of Judgment entered in the Domestic Action ("Memorandum of Judgment"). (Ex. 4). The Memorandum of Judgment enjoined Defendant from accessing Plaintiff's online accounts (e.g. financial, email, and social media accounts) and prevented Defendant from further disparaging Plaintiff and his business.
Plaintiff filed the pending action in this Court on June 24, 2019, thirteen days after entry of the MOJ/Order in the DV Action.1 Here, Plaintiff makes the following, factual allegations against Defendant, many of which mirror factual allegations made in the DV action: (1) Defendant accessed or attempted to access Plaintiff's iCloud account on various occasions; (2) Defendant accessed Plaintiff's text correspondence, saved various messages, sent messages on Plaintiff's behalf, and sent messages to herself; (3) Defendant accessed or attempted to access Bank of America accounts belonging to Plaintiff; (4) Defendant changed the email associated with Plaintiff's Instagram account; (5) Defendant used Plaintiff's name and photo to create a fictitious Instagram account to impersonate Plaintiff and then engaged in various activities with that account; and (6) Defendant accessed or attempted to access Plaintiff's Dropbox account in order to obtain information contained therein. Based on the above factual allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(A)(2)(C), 1030(A)(5)(C) (Counts One and Three); computer trespass under N.C. GEN. STAT. § 1-539.2A (Count Three); identity theft under N.C. GEN. STAT. § 1-539.2C (Count Four); and invasion of privacy – offensive intrusion (Count Five). For relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees, as well as a permanent injunction.
Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss on August 26, 2019, seeking dismissal of this action under the doctrine of res judicata. (Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff filed a response on September 23, 2019, and Defendant filed a Reply on October 10, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 9, 11). This matter is ripe for adjudication.
Under North Carolina law, the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents a party from re-litigating prior resolved claims, and forces a party to join all matters that can or should have been asserted in a single action.2 Skinner v. Quintiles Transnational Corp., 167 N.C. App. 478, 482, 606 S.E.2d 191, 193 (2004). For res judicata to apply, three elements must be present: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the parties in each case; and (3) an identity of the same claims. Id.; accord Martin v. Am. Bancorporation Ret. Plan, 407 F.3d 643, 650 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345, 354-55 (4th Cir. 2004) ).
In addition to matters actually litigated or determined in the prior case, res judicata also bars "all relevant and material matters within the scope of the proceeding which the parties, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could and should have brought forward for determination." Skinner, 167 N.C. App. at 482, 606 S.E.2d at 193-94 ; see also Smith v. Bank of Stanly, 219 N.C. App. 651, 723 S.E.2d 174 (2012) (unpublished) (). Thus, although North Carolina courts have not adopted the federal "transactional approach" to res judicata in which all issues arising out of a single transaction or series of transactions must be tried together as one claim, North Carolina law mandates that "[a] party is required to bring forth the whole case at one time and will not be permitted to split the claim or divide the grounds for recovery; thus, a party will not be permitted, except in special circumstances, to reopen the subject of the ... litigation with respect to matters which might have been brought forward in the previous proceeding." Rodgers Builders, Inc. v. McQueen, 76 N.C. App. 16, 23, 331 S.E.2d 726, 730 (1985). Moreover, "the defense of res judicata may not be avoided by shifting legal theories or asserting a new or different ground for relief." Skinner, 167 N.C. App. at 483, 606 S.E.2d at 194 (citing Rodgers, 76 N.C. App at 30, 331 S.E.2d at 735 ).
Finally, while a court generally may not consider materials outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, several factors both permit and oblige this Court to consider the various judicial documents that Defendant references as exhibits without converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment. First, a court may consider matters of public record in conjunction with a motion to dismiss, including specifically records from other court proceedings. E.g., Walker v. Kelly, 589 F.3d 127, 139 (4th Cir. 2009). Second, a court may properly examine documents that are referenced in the complaint. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007). Third, and specifically related to res judicata, a court may take both judicial notice of facts from prior judicial proceedings and the filings from such proceedings. Andrews v. Daw, 201 F.3d 521, 524 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000).
As stated above, res judicata bars a subsequent action if (1) there is a final judgment on the merits in an earlier case; (2) both actions involve the same parties; and (3) the claims are deemed the same. Skinner, 167 N.C. App. at 482, 606 S.E.2d at 193. The parties agree that the first two elements are met, and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial